MissTyrios dot com

I have no problem expressing my deep disdain for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He ridiculed the state while he was supposed to be running it, focused from the beginning on becoming President (don’t even get me started on the fact that he’s actually raising a lot of damn money in that pathetic pursuit). One of the things that angered me the most about his reign was his resurrection of a 1913 law that prohibited couples from getting married in Massachusetts if their marriage would be void in their home state. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the law was originally meant to prevent inter-racial marriages, but that shameful discriminatory origin was meant nothing to Mitt, who churned it up to prevent non-Massachusetts-based gay couples from getting married here. He stated that such a thing would mean that Massachusetts would become the “Las Vegas of gay marriages.” He meant this derisively of course, but I can think of few taglines for this state that would make me prouder. In fact, I want a license plate slogan reading just that.

Thankfully, we actually voted in a governor who supports things like, oh, civil rights. And Governor Deval Patrick (who has had my support from the beginning) announced that he wants the pesky old law repealed.

“I know that the 1913 law has sort of smelly origins,” Patrick said. “I think it’s outdated. If it passes the Legislature and comes to my desk, I’ll sign it.”

[…]

Gay activists concede they have a good chance of repealing the 1913 law, but say they are focusing first on defeating the proposed constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

Oh yeah. We still have to contend with the fact that the last legislative session voted to allow a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. Of course, they did this under pressure from Ole Mitt, who actually sued the Legislature and asked the Supreme Judicial Court to force them to vote, creating a potentially messy separation of powers clusterfuck. While the SJC obviously said it couldn’t force the legislature to do anything (hello middle school civics), it did shame them into voting. And that vote result was shameful. In order to actually put the ban question on the 2008 ballot, it needs to pass in this session of the legislature as well - so hopefully, it will not.

Repealing this 1913 law would not be a mere symbolic victory, as it could allow couples who marry here to go back to their own states and sue for recognition, forcing the issue to the courts. Some gay marriage opponents apparently see causing “legal chaos” at the top of the gay agenda:

The vast number of states already have laws or constitutional amendments specifically barring same sex marriages. A marriage certificate might let a couple mount a legal challenge, but there’s no guarantee the marriage would be recognized.

That kind of legal chaos is a good argument to keep the 1913 law in place, according to Brian Camenker, leader of MassResistance, a group opposed to gay marriage.

“The whole reason that the gay lobby wants this overturned is for that reason, so they can disrupt the whole situation regarding marriage in other states and cause as much trouble as they can across the country,” he said.

And to that, I laugh. Quite a lot.

Viva Las Gay Marriages!

The New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) came down with a disappointing, though not entirely unexpected, opinion today, holding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry does not violate the state constitution. The majority opinion, finding that there could be a rational basis to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, stuck to the usual (crap) rhetoric about children benefiting from having two opposite-sex parents. It went on a long historical (crap) rambling about how denying same-sex couples the right to marry isn’t the same as denying couples of different races the right because, apparently, discrimination against homosexuals is relatively new, as compared to the ages-old discrimination based on race. None of this really surprises me, though it does sadden me.

What stood out to me was a passage in the concurring opinion that stated:

It is not irrational for the Legislature to provide an incentive for opposite-sex couples — for whom children may be conceived from casual, even momentary
intimate relationships — to marry, create a family environment, and support their children. Although many same-sex couples share these family objectives and are competently raising children in a stable environment, they are simply not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in this regard given the intrinsic
differences in the assisted reproduction or adoption processes that most homosexual couples rely on to have children.

Soooo…because straight couples can get preggers in a bout of drunken irresponsibility and gay couples have to carefully plan to have kids, marriage should be reserved only to those who are shamed into a shotgun wedding because the little pee stick turned blue? And it should be denied to those who are responsible and patient enough to really plan to have and raise kids?

I can’t figure out if this is some sort of back-handed compliment to same-sex parents buried within a decision saying denying them rights isn’t unconstitutional.

So being the little grassroots activist that I sometimes am, I wrote an email to Macy’s expressing my extreme displeasure that they would pander to a anti-gay group and alter their Gay Pride Week window display (see story below). The response I got really doesn’t make any sense at all.

Macy’s has a long-standing and respected history of support for diversity. Our company policy is deeply-rooted in diversity and inclusiveness. As such, we support a variety of causes in the communities that we serve. Our commitment and celebration of Gay Pride has been traditionally commemorated in our window displays. Our annual support of Gay Pride week in Boston and in other cities where we operate clearly demonstrates our commitment to diversity. Macy’s commitment to diversity will continue to be an important part of our company and community outreach as we celebrate Gay Pride festivities this month and in the future.

Sincerely,

Joanne Sacco, Manager Customer and Store Services

Sue McMahon’s Office, Macy’s East

Huh? I write a letter complaining about altering a Gay Pride display on the basis of a few hateful responses and you answer me by saying that you are committed to diversity and will continue to celebrate Gay Pride? Did you even read my letter, or is this some chameleon response you send to everyone that wrote about the window being taken down, no matter if the feedback was positive or negative? If you’re committed to diversity, then ignore the ridiculous anti-gay groups and move on. If your vision of diversity includes pandering to anti-gay groups, then don’t act like you’re triumphing the gays.

Massachusetts is the only state in the entire country in which same-sex marriage is legal. You would think that after two full years of gay couples getting married and the sky subsequently not falling and the institution of marriage not collapsing in on itself, that the anti-gay crazies would just drop the marriage issue and shut the hell up. But, perhaps fueled by the return of gay marriage to the national stage, they have piped up again, succeeding in getting Boston downtown department store Macy’s to take down a window display celebrating gay pride week.

The Macy’s store - which is the former flagship location of the Boston institution of Filene’s, recently replaced because Macy’s bought out the competition - had put up a window display with a list of gay pride week events (including the AIDS Walk) and two male mannequins, one of which was wearing a rainbow flag around its waist. A group that calls itself “MassResistance” (puke) called the display “offensive” and got Macy’s to cave into removing the mannequins. Macy’s offered a pathetic little answer:

“We believe in diversity, and our customers are very important to us,” [Macy’s spokesperson Elina] Kazan said. “But (the display) did offend a few of our customers, and we had to re-examine it.”

Come on, people. How could this possibly be offensive? It worries me that a major local business is so willing to give into paltry, whiny groups like this.